SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (26638)9/6/2012 2:16:45 PM
From: gamesmistress  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
"The more education the more people make. And it goes all the way up."

[Not really. An undergraduate degree will do]

Grades Have No Correlation with Wealth & Financial Independence

Everyone knows that more education means higher income over the course of life. But what people fail to realize is that there is no correlation between grades and wealth. An "A" college graduate will be just as successful as a "C-" college graduate.

According to decades of extensive research by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D., author of The Millionaire Next Door, the grades one earns in school have no correlation with the economic wealth and success other than in the medical and legal professions. That's not to say education isn't important - it is! More than 90% of American millionaires did, in fact, graduate with an undergraduate degree.

Why, then, do parents, teachers, and councilors continue to tell children that they won't be successful if they have a C- grade point average? Statistically speaking, according to Stanley, it's because these people are themselves not financially successful. Therefore, they have no idea what it takes to achieve financial independence and buy into the great myth that good students go further in life. They pitifully measure analytical intelligence only and not the creative intelligence that is responsible for sparking innovations, societal advancements, and the opportunity to craft solutions in niche markets that everyone else misses. They also fail to realize that most millionaires wear blue jeans, overalls, or work shirts, not a suit and tie. They eat McDonald's and Burger King. They live in ordinary, well-established neighborhoods. Most own their own business.

Statistically, if you want to guess who is going to be wealthy and financial independent, you'd be more likely finding a self-sufficient student in wood shop class who paid for his own car, gets decent (but not spectacular) grades, has a job, and enjoys what he does than selecting someone from the honor roll. It's counterintuitive, but it's true.

"
We don't need the rich"

But Americans want to be rich. The average American is more apt to look at the well-off person and want to be like him, to have what he has, not strip him of his wealth.



To: koan who wrote (26638)9/6/2012 2:17:11 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
There is a perfect correlation between eduction and income (production) .The more education the more people make. And it goes all the way up. Period.

That isn't a perfect correlation.

Here is a quick overview of correlation for you.
nvcc.edu
or see
en.wikipedia.org

Education and income are positively correlated, but not perfectly correlated. The correlation is not 1. A perfect correlation would imply that there where no rich people with low educational achievement and no poor educated people. Also the correlation wouldn't be "all the way up" only for educational levels, but also for dollar levels. I believe billionaires are on the average less educated than those pulling in a few hundred thousand a year.

If people had nothing except massive education they would make this country rich in no time.

Nothing, no money, no infrastructure, no technology etc. just standardized education for all? Are you serious?

And no Japan didn't do that. They used a lot of money (some of it rebuilding aid from the US, then later much of it from foreign investment, then when they could take over much of the investment themselves, a lot of it was from the rich. They didn't do without the rich, or have economic success just relying on education and nothing else.

Our schools are fine

usatoday.com

Notice Detroit at 21.7% graduation rate, Baltimore at 38.5, and the biggest three cities New York, LA, and Chicago are at 38.9, 44.2, and 52.2

they just need to be cheaper

You want more spending not less. That's the opposite of cheaper.

If your talking about cheaper in terms of tuition, public primary and secondary schools typically have no tuition. And in any case subsidized doesn't mean cheaper, it just means someone else is paying for it.

and we need more of them

Which would again be more expensive. Also why?